"Women's reproductive rights" or a Child's right to be born? It's all about choiceS.

Hi ATS,

I wrote a big post for social media recently which I was going to post to my Facebook, but then thought better of it because I know what a #storm it would have created in my family had I aired those views here in the UK, where we seem to think that a baby is not a living soul unless it has been brought to term & delivered with the consent of the woman involved.

My laptop died last night so I lost that essay as I wasn't able to recover the data, but on seeing a thread on here (can't find it now!) I felt that I needed to voice that opinion at least to my surrogate ATS family..

Essentially my view boils down to one point, which I need to express emphatically. We are constantly hearing abortion apologists bleating on about "women's reproductive rights", "my body, my choice" (which vanished during the PLandemic, incidentally) and so on. However - the one choice that is fundamental to the entire debacle of an unwanted pregnancy is the first choice that should have been made more carefully. The choice to have unprotected sex with someone you had no intention of starting a family with. But not only that - the real problem occurs thereafter in deciding that you wouldn't bother taking a morning after pill - an act which no sane person would consider an abortion, because all that exists in that moment is a tiny ball of a few cells. It costs nothing in most Western democracies.

When it comes to the presence of the soul, I'm of the opinion that the soul enters soon after conception, not at the very moment of conception. It will be a long, long time before our science can address matters of the soul, but eventually - if we don't face Armageddon first, and if we manage to get through the dystopian Hellscape that the elitists want to create for us - then eventually, our science will begin to look more & more like magic, and we could discover some truly wondrous things, such as when the little ball of cells becomes a living soul.

It says in scripture:

..the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Genesis 2: 7

Now just because I quoted scripture doesn't mean I hold no stock in science. As I've just demonstrated, I actually think our science has the potential to eventually unravel the deepest of all mysteries of the human condition! Sad thing is, God will probably have to wrap this whole clown show up a long time before we get to that stage. With that said, however, I actually quoted the scripture for two reasons. Firstly, I really love it. It's so simple, and yet it pertains to the deepest mystery of our existence, and the life of the Spirit flows through every word. Did someone create us? From basic & tiny building blocks, the very dust of our carbon-based/life-filled world? And when did we become 'alive'..? Were we alive at the very moment we were formed? Or was there a pause? A moment of dramatic tension, as the angels looked on & held their breath, as the Father breathed some part of His own Spirit into our lungs..?

Secondly, I believe that there is a clue in this verse (as there is in every verse of scripture) - a clue^ that speaks to a higher truth than what may appear at first glance to rest within the words on the page. As stated, I don't consider that the tiny bundle of a few cells dividing in accordance with the wonders of the genetic template is in fact, at that very moment, a living soul. I'm convinced that we don't come into being as living souls until sometime after the first fires are kindled in our tiny little neoforming brains as they begin to spark & crackle with the potential to hold consciousness glued to the template of the tiny little body being knit together by the mandate of Heaven, through the wizardry of the mother's and father's DNA operating in partnership.

^ The breath is breathed into previously extant nostrils (the clue!)

When does that moment of 'ensoulment' arrive? Well, if I had to guess, I'd say it's probably when the foetus reaches somewhere around 4 weeks old. If you review images of the embryo as it grows into a foetus, the brain begins to develop around the three/four week mark. If I were to be the one who made the decision regarding when a woman could terminate an unwanted pregnancy? I would measure it as being acceptable until the foetus is up to four weeks of age. After that, they are terminating a living soul - and that should be a crime, unless it is done to save the life of the mother.

The clock starts ticking at the time of sex itself.

Law = You MUST take a pill within 4 weeks of unprotected sex.

Everyone talks about women's reproductive rights, but few talk about the right of a child to be born, and the foetus is a child after its neocortex begins to emit electrical activity, because that activity, is the hallmark of a living soul. Activity occurring in the part of the brain that is largely responsible for our conscious thought processes is the only measurable sign of a soul in motion, tumbling through the sanctum of its assigned 'tabula rasa', getting to grips with its newfound connection to the physical world.

With the reflective thoughts on the scripture on this topic, it goes without saying that I should speak to the ridiculous doctrine of purgatory for babies who die before being baptised. It's sheer nonsense. Any child who dies before the age of thirteen has died before they reach the scriptural age of accountability, the threshold of adult decision-making. Even if a child older than that dies in a society that is floundering and lost as regards spiritual truths, if they have been brought up in a traumatic/ abusive family life, if their families are equally clueless about spiritual things, then that child will not be held accountable by God for the things they've done as a misguided youth - except perhaps for willfully transgressing a functional conscience unto the hardening of their heart.

"Remember, O LORD, Your compassion and loving devotion, for they are from age to age. Remember not the sins of my youth, nor my rebellious acts; remember me according to Your loving devotion, because of Your goodness, O LORD. Good and upright is the LORD; therefore He shows sinners the way.."

Psalm 25: 6-8

As regards the doctrine of purgatory itself, in a sense it does exist, there are many examples of people whose heart & brain activity has ceased, and they dissociate from the body into a 'bad place' (though it is not as terrible as the darkest realms of Hell that I have been somewhat enlightened to understand through spiritual dreaming in the prophetic sense) - and from that place, they are told to pray, or they spontaneously pray to God/Jesus for help - and the Lord delivers them into a realm of wondrous light instead of leaving them in that bad place. At which point, many are told it isn't their time, and they are returned to their bodies as the medics revive them in the hospital. Many others are given a choice as to whether they wish to remain in Paradise, or return to the Earth to bless others & live a reformed life - a great many choose that as a path of redemption, thereafter finding themselves medically revived & able to relate to others the remarkable events they have experienced.

But especially for those who are young, any who have been abused or exposed to trauma, God would never condemn...



Continued below...

Here's a story which, although the gentleman involved doesn't frame it as an experience involving Christ, actually speaks in a powerful, incredible way regarding the ineffable love which God has for each one of us, and I have no doubt that He met with an expression of God as the Father whom he had never known before, having been raised in a very abusive home and finally having attempted suicide with an overdose of sleeping pills at the age of fifteen years old.

His experience speaks profoundly about the way in which God not only has no need to forgive a child in such circumstances, but indeed grieves with that child over the trauma and pain they have experienced in their short lives. The way this man, forty years later, describes his experience, it is plain to see that God 'downloaded' miraculous healing into his body, soul & spirit that day, in a way that He often does when we receive prayer from fellow church friends, for example. He was briefly taken outside of time & space, into a realm of love & bright wonder where he was made to feel truly loved & accepted in a powerful way, for the first time in those fifteen years of life.

Teen commits suicide but is taken by God and feels pure love before being returned to his body

I have often tried to explain on this forum the way in which God has communicated to me the magnitude of His love, His grace, His peace, His truth & the infinitely wondrous power of His life bringing life to all. I have explained it often by saying that "God is far more forgiving than most Christians will give Him credit for".

And indeed, the man who wrote this post on the IANDS website affirms that sentiment, in words more elegant than I can muster because I myself haven't yet had a fully immersive encounter with God in the way that occurs after we physically pass from this earth. Sometimes people are blessed to have such power encounters while still living, but it is rare. Instead, I have experienced what we refer to as the 'Shekinah' presence of God, the abiding presence of the glory of God's Holy Spirit (the Person of the Lord's triune nature which dwells with us while we are here on Earth, often referred to as 'the comforter', for He comforts us in our distress, and brings the peace of 'shalom' blessings upon us). I have experienced the encouragement & blessing of God's presence in worship, I have experienced the 'sound' of His voice when reading the scriptures, when His Spirit flows through the words on the page so it comes alive.. I have been blessed with some of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and I have experienced encounters with the Lord Jesus in many prophetic & spiritual dreams over the years.

I still get awed by imagining what it will be like to die and be brought into the immanent presence of God in Heaven - it very much brings meaning to the phrase 'god-fearing'.. How can any of us be prepared? I often find myself wondering whether I will have been 'good enough', though I understand theologically that it's not about that, it never was. We're all equal, and we all need forgiveness as we get older and make our mistakes, violating our consciences in ways small or large, producing sin. But God would never condemn a soul in torment such as the man who attempted to take his own life at a very young age as described in the story above - I highly recommend you read the man's testimony, it is very moving.

Also as an aside, from prior experience with the IANDS website, I have absolute confidence that the data made available on there, despite much of it being extremely valuable for people looking for answers, is to quite a large extent 'salted' with fake stories posted by atheist trolls of varying intellect (some are very devious & craft a good 'narrative' for their chicanery) who are intent on undoing all the potentially good work that an organisation such as theirs could potentially accomplish, if it bothered to protect the integrity of its data by assigning the NDEs into categories demarcated by measures of credulity - such as assigning them a confidence score based on how many of the most typical NDE features were present in each particular report. Currently 'any report is a good report' is the operative editorial line, and there's no way to filter out the salted crap from the good data. The IANDS site is thus being corrupted by fake stories written by spiritual wolves in sheep's clothing, in the same way as Wikipedia is assiduously managed by fanatical editorial trolls, many linked to the intelligence community, who ensure that a certain narrative line is played out for any potentially sensitive subjects, so that unsuspecting souls who want to access real knowledge are drowned in an overwhelming ocean of sludge & thereby find themselves deceived to some extent by all the bad data.

I even had an encounter with an official editor of the IANDS site who wrote a surprising & truly poisonous email in reply when I raised a genteel concern that this seemed to be happening. This occurred after I read a ridiculously fake story in which the person 'reporting' their NDE had said that the creator of the universe was a cartoon version of a giant silverback gorilla. Apparently, the gorilla high-fived & congratulated him (the guy reporting the story) and hailed him as "truly an incredible, amazing, awesome guy". The gorilla continued by saying that all religions were literally fake and that only hedonism was a valid path. After expressing that worries that the data was being distorted by fake stories of this nature, she really went for the jugular vein with an acerbic and lengthy email full of typical ultra left screeching hysterical lunacy, claiming that I wasn't "..being tolerant enough, that I clearly had a closed mind, and an agenda, and that lots of people think religion is fake, so how dare I utter even a note of caution in the face of this wonderful man's NDE encounter with a cartoon gorilla, which he had the bravery to report honestly." Her position was that 'any report is a valid report', no matter how ridiculous, how tainted by biases or how clearly designed to deliberately portray both God & the Christian faith in a ridiculous & mocking way. She claimed "You aren't spiritually enlightened enough to validate this man's story", which was just as valid as any other.

AND SO - a note of caution. Read the reports in the context that some of them are brazenly & very deliberately fake, and even some of the editors are in on the game.

Thanks,


FITO.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

The problem is that both sides have legitimate points. This has never been an easy topic and relies more on one's personal beliefs. And well let's be honest how self centered they are.

There are so many things wrong with laws regarding children. For example the guys have no say in if a woman decides to keep their child or kill it. Its her decision and the guy must abide by that decision and even provide child support without having any say in the decisions. Even worse if the mother wants to place the child in to adoption this leads to a long legal fight just to have the man's legal rights to the child. Very difficult for males to get their sons or daughters if the woman puts them up for adoption.

As for when is it OK to kill a fetus people would argue never. Others would say up until its viable on its own. Where would you draw the line. Where does the fetus gets its right to survive? No easy answers and no matter what you do people will always be unhappy. Arguing when they have a soul or when they feel pain all becomes irrelevant. What need to be decided is as a society when do we give the fetus rights and we need to be consistent as well. For example I cause a woman to miscarry and I can be tried for murder of the fetus. However that same mother can decide to have an abortion and she isn't charged with murder. No easy answer's

It always has been about women's reproductive rights and always will. Any woman can pretty much self abort if need be and was to be desperate enough. I think its a matter of safety for women for legal abortion. But legal abortion has been desensitized to a means of common birth control. In reality it's murder any way you slice it. It's all on the Mother's soul and between her and God in the end anyway. Gee I wonder if all survivors of rape & incest are just trash and should self terminate themselves? Sounds crazy huh? So is Abortion.

The central nervous system in the foetus does not develop until 15 weeks. Before that time it has no awareness and cannot feel pain. I believe the soul enters the body after 15 weeks. I think a 12 week abortion limit is permissible.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

Women's reproductive rights" or a Child's right to be born? It's all about choiceS.

Yes, a Woman's choice, certainly not the states.

Religious sensibility aside to assume or think otherwise is sheer arrogance.

Republicans obviously feel women simply don't have the intelligence to make their OWN decisions when it comes to their pregnancies.

I agree. Women should not have autonomy of their own bodies. Only men should.

Women, accept that you like men controlling you and America can move on.

Put Trump in office and accept your fate. It will be easier on you. And if you keep resisting, we might take away your right to vote or maybe drive. We have the power to do it. You let us.

Choices. Free will. Everyone has the right to choose whatever they want for themselves.

We have the right to choose to do right or to do wrong.

Abortion is always wrong.

Abortion always results in the utter destruction of a human life.

If a woman chooses abortion, either entirely on her own volition or as a result of family/partner/financial/societal pressure, that is up to her.

What is not up to her or the pro-abortionists are the narratives I choose to describe what happens in abortion.

If somebody feels hurt or insulted when reminded abortion kills the unborn, that is a result of their choices and they have no right to tell me what I may or may not say on the matter.

Drilling down to when the unborn have a soul or feel pain is irrelevant. Abortion converts a life that never had the chance to make a choice, into a corpse.

a reply to: covent

Abortion is always wrong.

So what about under the circumstances of rape or incest?

Or where carrying the child to term may very well end up killing the mother?

What if the child is to be born without a head?

Is the act of abortion wrong then considering the implications?

I have no idea how far rhe Republican party's anti-abortion stance goes, but I'm assuming no abortions, full stop.
When I first came across the Republican stance on this, I honestly thought it was a mistake as it sounds more like what the Dems would do.
This is the one thing I cannot agree with your Republican party about.
Terminations have happened since forever for a multitude of reasons. You take the option of having a safe procedure away, of an early stage pregnancy from a woman and you are going to send it back to the dark ages and more deaths will ensue. THAT is what is barbaric.
Rainbows
Jane

a reply to: andy06shake

So what about under the circumstances of rape or incest?

If she did not take the morning after pill or visit a hospital then that is HER descision and no child should die for it

where carrying the child to term may very well end up killing the mother?

This would be a medical descision and between a doctor (who has taken an oath to do no harm) and the family

What if the child is to be born without a head?

This would be an unviable human and wouldnt be covered by any thing that only applies to viable humans

Is the act of abortion wrong then considering the implications?

Yes

originally posted by: dragonridr
Where would you draw the line.

In my negotiating experience, a good negotiating conclusion is when neither side is 100% happy. There are two ways to do this and just end the BS of what is basically a huge chunk of what the Democrats use in their election campaigns.

1. Have Congress set a date such as 14 weeks, end of story, and that is something they should have done 30 years ago to replace Roe vs Wade.

2. Let the state figure it out. The worst case would be an inconvenient travel in time and cost to go from one state to another. Abortion clinics are big business on the New Mexico border to Texas, for example. One thing that I see as a positive with this direction is that people Women/Men will take it more seriously than when they just needed to go down the street for free abortions paid for by the taxpayers of the state.

Maybe this would take us back to the old Democratic slogan they seem to forget... Safe, Legal, and Rare

originally posted by: Another_Nut
If she did not take the morning after pill or visit a hospital then that is HER descision and no child should die for it

If 2 days is OK then why not 14 weeks? Did God say 2 days was OK?

originally posted by: angelchemuel
You take the option of having a safe procedure away, of an early stage pregnancy from a woman and you are going to send it back to the dark ages and more deaths will ensue. THAT is what is barbaric.
Rainbows
Jane

There are still options... Not as quick, easy, and free as the Abortion clinic down the street though, but the options are very viable. Maybe the best direction is to not make then so easy...

a reply to: Xtrozero

Who is talking about god? Not me

From conception to implantation , which can take up to days after, there is no viable human.

This is the time for a morning after pill which, usually, prevents inplantation and, therefore, acts before the stage of viability

originally posted by: andy06shake

Yes, a Woman's choice, certainly not the states.

Religious sensibility aside to assume or think otherwise is sheer arrogance.

How do you feel about if the woman gets an abortion then she could be fired from her job? What is fair is fair, right?

originally posted by: Another_Nut

Who is talking about god? Not me

From conception to implantation , which can take up to days after, there is no viable human.

This is the time for a morning after pill which, usually, prevents inplantation and, therefore, acts before the stage of viability

Then what is your point? How about a heartbeat bill? I could see the pill used in Texas as an alternate means, but not fed.

a reply to: Xtrozero

How about a heartbeat bill?

Because science.

originally posted by: Another_Nut

Because science.

We kill humans all the time, so your point again?

a reply to: Another_Nut

If she did not take the morning after pill or visit a hospital then that is HER descision and no child should die for it

Her decision to be raped or beasted down to the likes of incest???!!!

I think the morning-after pills may be the least of concerns under such circumstances.

Do you think the sick and twisted bastards that perpetrate such acts of depravity also allow their victims access to health care the next day?

This would be a medical descision and between a doctor (who has taken an oath to do no harm) and the family

And would result in an abortion if the doctor does indeed subscribe to the do no harm part of his Hippocratic oath.

This would be an unviable human and wouldnt be covered by any thing that only applies to viable humans

So there are circumstances where abortion is a necessary, check.

Yes

Do you require me to point out the holes in your logic?

Considering the seemingly conflicting answers you provided for the last two questions.